Personal opinion: it probably wasn't intentional, but please don't do that. It doesn't help anyone and is needless churn. Fluent methods are not better than non-fluent ones, and are in fact less semantic and harder to debug. They prioritize saving code writing over code maintainability.
Not just personal opinion: The API MUST not be changed in an incompatible way. Changing the return type of an overridable method is an incompatible change that is forbidden. Return types of non-overridable methods (final, private, or static) might be able to be changed, but still shouldn;t be. On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 7:13 AM Filip Strajnar <filip.straj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Greetings, > > > I've noticed that some methods on the org.apache.commons.mail.Email > class provide fluent interface (examples include setCc, addBcc, > addReplyTo), and some do not (to name a few: setAuthentication, > setSmtpPort, setMailSession). Is this intentional, or am I allowed to > submit a PR that would change all relevant void methods so that they > would return an Email object instead? > > > Sincerely, > > Filip Strajnar > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elh...@ibiblio.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
